Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
DDoS And The Internet's Liability Problem
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
PaulV378
PaulV378,
User Rank: Strategist
11/21/2015 | 1:52:31 AM
Re: DDoS Botnets
those cloud providers are helping to create public hazards. the shift i'm looking for in liability will allow a ddos victim to recover damages from a cloud provider who sold the vm to a ddos-for-hire gang.


not everything that can be done, should be done. it's time everybody creating software or networks for the internet got that lesson taught to them.
wcbonner
wcbonner,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/19/2015 | 3:37:40 PM
DDoS Botnets
A growing trend in DDoS botnets is to use commercial cloud services and fresh, dedicated machines. Stolen credit card information is used to purchase the compute resources, and thousands of machines can be started up and dedicated to an attack before the fruadulent use has been detected.

This doesn't rely on existing weaknesses in open protocols, and new legislation is not going to fix things.

Wim.
victorhotel
victorhotel,
User Rank: Strategist
11/19/2015 | 2:17:13 PM
Re: Make it so
A good proposal, but will it fly?

Liability for insecure software has been proposed for well over decade, by Schneier and a host of others.  Nothing to show for it even though the law should be easy to formulate, as there is a direct contractual relationship between the victim (buyer of software) and the software vendor.  Of course, we do have liability written into individual contracts between corporate buyers and vendors.

Liability for DDoS is more difficult, as the victim is not the buyer of the defective product.  Then again, precedence does exist in tort law - if a car malfunctions and injures a pedestrian, the victim may have grounds to sue the car manufacturer.

Rather than lobbying Congress, your time may be better spent lobbying telecom regulators. They could fix the problem, partially, by mandating secure networks and servers in at least telecom providers and ISPs.  To be effective, the regulators would need to audit the providers.  (Do we need another PCI-DSS type audit scheme?)

How we fix the insecure IoT from being a party to DDoS I don't know.  Consumers don't care unless privacy or finances are at stake, so the politicians will certainly not care.
PaulV378
PaulV378,
User Rank: Strategist
11/19/2015 | 4:51:08 AM
Re: Make it so
my plan of the moment is to draft some proposed amendments to the computer fraud and abuse act (CFAA) and then go to DC and try to interest the US congress in this simple solution to the very vexing problem.
Thomas Claburn
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Ninja
11/18/2015 | 4:25:04 PM
Make it so
I agree. So what needs to happen to make this work?
<<   <   Page 2 / 2


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Machine Learning, AI & Deep Learning Improve Cybersecurity
Machine intelligence is influencing all aspects of cybersecurity. Organizations are implementing AI-based security to analyze event data using ML models that identify attack patterns and increase automation. Before security teams can take advantage of AI and ML tools, they need to know what is possible. This report covers: -How to assess the vendor's AI/ML claims -Defining success criteria for AI/ML implementations -Challenges when implementing AI
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-42002
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-01
SonicJS through 0.6.0 allows file overwrite. It has the following mutations that are used for updating files: fileCreate and fileUpdate. Both of these mutations can be called without any authentication to overwrite any files on a SonicJS application, leading to Arbitrary File Write and Delete.
CVE-2022-39268
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-30
### Impact In a CSRF attack, an innocent end user is tricked by an attacker into submitting a web request that they did not intend. This may cause actions to be performed on the website that can include inadvertent client or server data leakage, change of session state, or manipulation of an end use...
CVE-2022-34428
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-30
Dell Hybrid Client prior to version 1.8 contains a Regular Expression Denial of Service Vulnerability in the UI. An adversary with WMS group admin access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to temporary denial-of-service.
CVE-2022-34429
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-30
Dell Hybrid Client below 1.8 version contains a Zip Slip Vulnerability in UI. A guest privilege attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to system files modification.
CVE-2022-40923
PUBLISHED: 2022-09-30
A vulnerability in the LIEF::MachO::SegmentCommand::virtual_address function of LIEF v0.12.1 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (DOS) through a segmentation fault via a crafted MachO file.